Tweet
Infowars
Obamacare architect and MIT professor Jonathon Gruber is in hot water after spilling the beans on the deception needed to pass the contentious health care law, which he admitted depended upon the “stupidity of the American voter.”
Now a research paper he co-authored in the ’90s regarding income-based eugenics is also coming back to haunt him.
Gruber and the co-authors of the study, entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the ‘Marginal Child?,” were apparently attempting to gauge the success of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in many cases, in terms of how likely an aborted child was to live off the government dole.
The ultimate results of the study? In essence, that the welfare system was better off after abortion was legalized because it “saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994:”
We find evidence of sizeable positive selection: the average living circumstances of cohorts of children born immediately after abortion became legalized improved substantially relative to preceding cohorts, and relative to places where the legal status of abortion was not changing.
Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.
The last of these finding implies that the selection effects operating through the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994.
In other words, Gruber and his pro-choice peers wanted to illustrate that killing babies spared the earth undesirable “marginal” citizens who speculatively were “more likely” to have a single parent, be poor, or collect welfare.
“It is upsetting, to say the least, that someone who thought so highly of Roe V. Wade was helping to craft our national health care law,” writes Life News’ Cortney O’Brien. “Perhaps it explains why Obamacare is filled with abortion subsidies and plans that indirectly fund the procedure.”
The Obamacare architect’s findings are disturbing in light of the national conversation being had over race, where social justice crusaders are chanting the slogan “Black Lives Matter,” and are especially disconcerting due to the fact that a majority of abortion clinics are located in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Dr. Alveda King, the niece of famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., has stated that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionist “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
Obamacare architect and MIT professor Jonathon Gruber is in hot water after spilling the beans on the deception needed to pass the contentious health care law, which he admitted depended upon the “stupidity of the American voter.”
Now a research paper he co-authored in the ’90s regarding income-based eugenics is also coming back to haunt him.
Gruber and the co-authors of the study, entitled “Abortion Legalization and Child Living Circumstances: Who is the ‘Marginal Child?,” were apparently attempting to gauge the success of the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case, which legalized abortion in many cases, in terms of how likely an aborted child was to live off the government dole.
The ultimate results of the study? In essence, that the welfare system was better off after abortion was legalized because it “saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994:”
We find evidence of sizeable positive selection: the average living circumstances of cohorts of children born immediately after abortion became legalized improved substantially relative to preceding cohorts, and relative to places where the legal status of abortion was not changing.
Our results suggest that the marginal children who were not born as a result of abortion legalization would have systematically been born into worse circumstances had the pregnancies not been terminated: they would have been 70% more likely to live in a single parent household, 40% more likely to live in poverty, 35% more likely to die during the first year of life, and 50% more likely to be in a household collecting welfare.
The last of these finding implies that the selection effects operating through the legalization of abortion saved the government over $14 billion in welfare payments through the year 1994.
In other words, Gruber and his pro-choice peers wanted to illustrate that killing babies spared the earth undesirable “marginal” citizens who speculatively were “more likely” to have a single parent, be poor, or collect welfare.
“It is upsetting, to say the least, that someone who thought so highly of Roe V. Wade was helping to craft our national health care law,” writes Life News’ Cortney O’Brien. “Perhaps it explains why Obamacare is filled with abortion subsidies and plans that indirectly fund the procedure.”
The Obamacare architect’s findings are disturbing in light of the national conversation being had over race, where social justice crusaders are chanting the slogan “Black Lives Matter,” and are especially disconcerting due to the fact that a majority of abortion clinics are located in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.
Dr. Alveda King, the niece of famed civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., has stated that the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionist “who plant their killing centers in minority neighborhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope.”
Comment